Kissling Dares Catholic Hierarchy to Excommunicate Her for Abortion Advocacy

[Franciscan]

The Church does not have to excommunicate a person they do it to themselves and for them to receive communion without first going to confession would condemn them to Hell if they died in that state…

This seems to be repeated over and over again-Automatic-excommunication. It is tue.

But…

For the sake of the morale of the teachers and preachers of the Catholic Faith there is a need for a PUBLIC excommunication for PUBLIC officials.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This seems to be repeated over and over again-Automatic-excommunication. It is tue.

But…

For the sake of the morale of the teachers and preachers of the Catholic Faith there is a need for a PUBLIC excommunication for PUBLIC officials.

I agree – the Bishops should speak with one voice and say it is not permissible for Catholics to believe that killing a child – at any stage of development – is a "choice. Those who are unable to accept that in their hearts should pray for the grace to conform, and in thre meantime abstain from Communion – just as people who are divorced and remarried must abstain.

Those who publicly advocate the “pro-choice” position must cease that advocacy or be publicly excommunicated.

 

[byrdele]

Hello. I am new to this thread, my user name is byrdele (duh, as I guess you’ll see when I post).

I have worked and am working in the public school system. It seems to me that many pro-life (anti-abortion) candidates are for the death penalty, not very keen on ecological issues, ignore the social issues which often affect the child who was not aborted but brought into this world - since he often is brought in through a sinful act, which has no bearing on him, he is allowed to fall through the cracks.

The pro-choice (pro-abortion) candidates are often for beefing up social welfare services - this includes Child Welfare Services - which would mean that the pay rate for a welfare worker would increase which would result in more people working for CWS and the quality of their work could be regulated easier (right now, CWS is just happy to get anyone). What that means is that high risk children at home would not end up being beaten to death, as has happened, by the mother’s boyfriend for wetting her pants. In this case the child was supposed to be monitored closely and no one was able to visit her due to overloads in work and lack of manpower. Good ecological programs are important - we are destroying the very earth, including children, over which we were given dominion.

A lot of pro-choice candidates are also anti-death penalty. The Church has taken a firm stand on this issue and declared it not the solution for crime.

This year, as I have recently, I am voting for a pro-abortion candidate. I hate the thought, it appalls and sickens me. But it just seems that many pro-life candidates are only pro-life when it comes to abortion, and they are taking the right stance when they come out against it, but then they seem to drop the ball the rest of the way. I have to weigh how many pro-life issues for which the politician stands and then vote. It is no easy matter for me. One politician, for instance, is pro-choice. But he is against the death penalty, for ecological issuese such as searching for and using alternative and clean forms of renewable energy (let’s face it, when the oil and gas is gone, it is gone, and if we are not employing other forms of fuel, our descendants will be goners), are calling for stronger CWS and social services in general, putting more money into educational services so that the children will graduate more than just literate, more after-school programs to keep children occupied after school if mom and dad are not at home and will be fun and educational at the same time but mostly keep him off the streets and hopefully steer him to becoming a more productive citizen as an adult and keep him out of trouble while he is approaching adulthood. These issues are important and are pro-life: our descendants breathing clean air, children not left to their own devices after school, children learning at school to give them a chance in life (I wonder how much education most people on death row have or how much free time, too much, they had while growing up?), high risk children being noted and removed from dangerous environments. (Comment: the famous case in Texas about 10 years ago, Carla Faye Douglas, who committed a horrible, torturous murder while high on drugs and then ended up on death row, but became a Christian while on death row. She was 11 or 12 when she started using drugs and skipping school. Why was no one there to catch the fact that this child was not at school? Had there been, there might be 3 people alive today).

Btw, to the comment that Pope B. has gotten soft. He has come out and stated that politicians who advocate abortion should not receive Communion. Good on him!

Regards,

Roberta

 

[trentonzero]

I agree with you…mostly.

Yeah, we want people who are “consistently pro life”. No abortion, and no death penalty, good social justice.

But, by my understanding, there are some million or so abortions every year in the US.

By contrast, my home state of Texas, executes more people than any other state, at about 100 executions a year, and that after lengthy expensive hearings and appeals. If every state in the union executed as many people as Texas every year, then they would kill about 1/200th as many people as are aborted. And even murderers get the chance to be baptized and go to confession.

I agree that the two issues are really similar issues. But, they are also really not the same issue at all.

Fetii don’t get multiple appeals to the state. A governor can’t make a phone call have any given abortion procedure stopped the way he can have an execution stopped, based on little more than his own feelings of mercy. There’s no trial by jury to decide whether or not (to take a pro choice argument) that this baby will be so miserable that it is better off not living, the way there is a trial by jury to decide if a murderer’s crimes are so heinous that it deserves the death penalty.

Ditto for enviromental and social justice issues (though I don’t agree with everything you said…I just can’t see anything good coming from going even further with the “The state is the real parent of your children, you are just a babysitter” way of doing things).

 

[byrdele]

To Tretonzero:

You are absolutely right. If I had to choose between abortion and the death penalty on my agenda, it would be abortion. They cannot appeal the decision to end their lives, as you said, and more are murdered than people put to death for crimes in our country.

I am weighing in all the other issues I mentioned. And I do agree with you statement about the state should not be parent to the child. But neither should the state just let children fall through the cracks when their own parents are not willing to be parents, as in the case of the child who was beaten to death by her mother’s boyfriend. Our society is rife with cases like that - maybe not fatal, but incest (until working in the school system, I could not believe how many cases there are of that), abuse, neglect. That is where I expect the state to be able and to have the manpower to step in - for the legal system to save a life or save what has become of a life of a child. So for me, it is how many pro-life issues do I have to have on one side of the scale before I vote? Believe me, it is an agonizing choice and I understand why you do not agree with me on many of these issues. It seems that I am choosing quality over sanctity. I do not personally feel that I am, but I can see where others might see it that way.

regards

 

[Minnesota_Mary]

Hello. I am new to this thread, my user name is byrdele (duh, as I guess you’ll see when I post).

The pro-choice (pro-abortion) candidates are often for beefing up social welfare services - this includes Child Welfare Services - which would mean that the pay rate for a welfare worker would increase which would result in more people working for CWS and the quality of their work could be regulated easier (right now, CWS is just happy to get anyone). What that means is that high risk children at home would not end up being beaten to death, as has happened, by the mother’s boyfriend for wetting her pants. In this case the child was supposed to be monitored closely and no one was able to visit her due to overloads in work and lack of manpower. Good ecological programs are important - we are destroying the very earth, including children, over which we were given dominion.

A lot of pro-choice candidates are also anti-death penalty. The Church has taken a firm stand on this issue and declared it not the solution for crime.

This year, as I have recently, I am voting for a pro-abortion candidate. I hate the thought, it appalls and sickens me. But it just seems that many pro-life candidates are only pro-life when it comes to abortion, and they are taking the right stance when they come out against it, but then they seem to drop the ball the rest of the way. I have to weigh how many pro-life issues for which the politician stands and then vote. It is no easy matter for me. One politician, for instance, is pro-choice. But he is against the death penalty, for ecological issuese such as searching for and using alternative and clean forms of renewable energy (let’s face it, when the oil and gas is gone, it is gone, and if we are not employing other forms of fuel, our descendants will be goners), are calling for stronger CWS and social services in general, putting more money into educational services so that the children will graduate more than just literate, more after-school programs to keep children occupied after school if mom and dad are not at home and will be fun and educational at the same time but mostly keep him off the streets and hopefully steer him to becoming a more productive citizen as an adult and keep him out of trouble while he is approaching adulthood. These issues are important and are pro-life: our descendants breathing clean air, children not left to their own devices after school, children learning at school to give them a chance in life (I wonder how much education most people on death row have or how much free time, too much, they had while growing up?), high risk children being noted and removed from dangerous environments. (Comment: the famous case in Texas about 10 years ago, Carla Faye Douglas, who committed a horrible, torturous murder while high on drugs and then ended up on death row, but became a Christian while on death row. She was 11 or 12 when she started using drugs and skipping school. Why was no one there to catch the fact that this child was not at school? Had there been, there might be 3 people alive today).

Btw, to the comment that Pope B. has gotten soft. He has come out and stated that politicians who advocate abortion should not receive Communion. Good on him!

Regards,

Roberta

Regarading the Death Penalty, Section 2266 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

“Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity, the death penalty. For analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel armed force aggressors against the community in their charge.”

Regarding abortion the same catechism in Section 2271 states:

“Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable…”

There is a big difference between putting to death the innocent babe in the womb and executing a hardened killer behind bars who has been found guilty without a shadow of a doubt. Even Christ never denied the State the right to execute Him as He told Pilate that his power “came from above.” Mafia Dons still continue to run their evil operations from behind bars. Killings and sodomizing rapes happen in prisons all the time.

It never ceases to amaze me how many Catholics are strangely silent on abortion but very vociferous against capital punishment and are in favor of illegal immigrants being given citizenship and all sorts of rights and welfare benefits.

 

[rlg94086]

Hello. I am new to this thread, my user name is byrdele (duh, as I guess you’ll see when I post).

I have worked and am working in the public school system. It seems to me that many pro-life (anti-abortion) candidates are for the death penalty, not very keen on ecological issues, ignore the social issues which often affect the child who was not aborted but brought into this world - since he often is brought in through a sinful act, which has no bearing on him, he is allowed to fall through the cracks.

Hi Roberta,

Welcome to CAF!

In addition to the comments made on the death penalty by Minnesocold Mary, I would say that I don’t think it is fair to characterize pro-choice conservatives as being “not keen” on environmental issues or “ignoring” social issues. It is possible to take very Catholic positions under both the Democratic and Republican planks. The difference has to do with the role of government in these issues.

Democrats tend to believe that the government should take a stronger role in environmental and social issues. Whereas, Republicans tend to believe these are mostly private issues.

For example: Environmentally, a conservative Catholic should do things in their lives and their businesses to conserve/preserve our world. Socially, a conservative Catholic should be active in charitable good works. Some control and involvement are warranted, but Democrats tend to go overboard.

IMHO, it is wrong to support pro-choice politicians on their clearly anti-Catholic position because you prefer their particular view on how Catholics should handle environmental and social issues, since the handling of these issues is a matter of role-of-government and are not anti-Catholic.

The usual argument of pro-choice Catholics is that government should not have a role in limiting abortion, but that is nonsense. If you believe abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, then that position is indefensible - it would be like saying government has no role in making murder illegal.

God bless,

Robert

 

[Mike_Dye]

They won’t do squat.

 

[Minnesota_Mary]

They won’t do squat is right, unless you are Marcel Lefabvre or one of his followers.

 

[Holly3278]

I would be glad to see this person excommunicated. Sounds like she needs some discipline. Perhaps excommunication will cause her to repent and she will come to her senses about abortion. Abortion is murder!

 

[mark_a]

I wish we still had the old Joseph Ratzinger, ruthless when it came to defending the Holy Faith.

Pope Benedict has a different job than Joseph Ratzinger had.

He is the shepard of the flock now. He has watchdogs for this kind of work.

To presume that you know how one of the greatest theologians in history should handle this or that position in the Church is just plain disrespectful.

 

[mommyof4]

I keep coming back to the same point. When John Kerry visited Arkansas in '04, some newshound asked the Diocese if he would be granted communion – should he attend Mass.

The Diocese spokesman said, “We don’t want to put politicians under pressure.”

In every Catholic church in the land, there are people who cannot take communion – those Protestants married to Catholics, those who are divorced and remarried, and so on. Yet we have no compunction about putting **them **under pressure!

Apparently there are two Catholic Churches – one for the rich and powerful, and one for the rest of us.

Amen. Excellent point.

 

[Sheeniac]

I wish we still had the old Joseph Ratzinger, ruthless when it came to defending the Holy Faith. But I hate to say it, Papa Ratzi has gotten soft. My prayers for him to have courage don’t seem to be working.

B16’s role is not the same as before when he was pre-16. He hasn’t changed, but as Pope he has different priorities and responsibilities. However, I am sure your prayers are still a wonderful help!

 

[Sheeniac]

I would not dictate a course of action to the Bishops, but I plead with them, do something! Show us that you’re serious about protecting the unborn.

Don’t leave us thinking that abortion is less serious than remarriage after divorce.

I haven’t been ‘home’ all that long, but I don’t recall the issue being in the news before. Now we have Bishops and Cardinals (Pell) addressing this/talking about it - did this happen in the past (last 30 years or so…)?

Now I know that some will say that talk is not action, but Rome wasn’t built in a day. It’s a heartening start.

 

[eric3141]

Since God draws good out of evil, let’s pray that Frances Kissling’s provocation will help provoke some bishops into exhibiting the courage necessary for the first excommunications.
.

Why are the bishops AFRAID of disciplining these pro-abortion politicians? This makes no sense at all. We have religious freedom in this country - it’s not like they can be jailed or fined for excommunicating them.

 

[eric3141]

Given two candidates who are equally pro-abortion, you can ethically make your decision on other grounds. But you cannot ethically reject a pro-life candidate for a pro-abortion candidate on the grounds that the latter is “right” on repaving your street or some other issue.

You are exactly right. Unfortunately, priests are too scared to say this from the pulpit so the laity naturally falls prey to this way of thinking - the lie that it’s wrong to be a “one issue voter” when that issue is abortion.

I am so dismayed at the shambles the Church is in these days. How the bishops and priests sleep at night while saying nothing and doing nothing is beyond me.

 

[Kevin42]

You are exactly right. Unfortunately, priests are too scared to say this from the pulpit so the laity naturally falls prey to this way of thinking - the lie that it’s wrong to be a “one issue voter” when that issue is abortion.

I am so dismayed at the shambles the Church is in these days. How the bishops and priests sleep at night while saying nothing and doing nothing is beyond me.

I am sure the same way that we sleep with all the sins we have committed throughout our life. Let’s try and remember that these are men appointed by God and that doing there job is alot harder than critiquing it. Of course I am sure most all Catholics would agree something needs to be done about this, and they are probably right.

 

[kentuckyliz]

You are exactly right. Unfortunately, priests are too scared to say this from the pulpit so the laity naturally falls prey to this way of thinking - the lie that it’s wrong to be a “one issue voter” when that issue is abortion.

I am so dismayed at the shambles the Church is in these days. How the bishops and priests sleep at night while saying nothing and doing nothing is beyond me.

I have a long rant about the Gospel of Social Respectability, about how (even Christian) parents contracept their daughters out of fear of this hypersexualized culture and fear of social shame if she should get inappropriately pregnant. They’d rather murder than bear the shame. This is probably more widespread than we fervent ones could guess. I’m seeing it in my sister right now as she deals with the fact that her teen son is sexually active (a choice she didn’t have, unchosen virtue through nerditude and geekiness in HS)…and her hubby has always blathered on about sowing wild oats and a celibate priesthood is unnatural–every adult male needs sex for basic health, and has his pile of Playboys in that one secret bathroom cabinet that everyone looking for TP finds…and they go to an ECUSA church because the music is good and RC music is bad. Look at the abomination of desolation that is ECUSA! The only teaching about sexual morality is anything that moves as long as it consents and don’t judge. They’ve had episcopriestesses breathily pontificating cherishing diversity through cherishing perversity. My sister and her husband have done ZERO to encourage chastity and virginity in her kids. So, WHY ARE YOU SURPRISED THAT YOUR SON HEARD YOU? He got the message! Now you’re terrified he’ll knock up his oh so in love girlfriend (hurl: you can smell the estrogen across the room) and they fear she’s a gold digger. I had to teach her about child support enforcement laws–they don’t go after grandparents and the son doesn’t have anything, so no loss. A pregnancy might be the best thing to happen, to force them to maturity if they have the child and get married and he has to support a family. If he chooses life and becomes a good Christian man, husband, and father! For sis, it’s all about losing face with her wealthy powerful respectable church friends and the pocketbook.

Hope the music was worth it, “grandma.”

It’s hard to sing through the burning tears, is it not?

Anyway, I wonder if the silence from the pulpit about the grave evils of contraception and abortion is because there are too many parents who believe in the Gospel of Social Respectability?

Re Church shambles: Be the church you envision. Holiness was never dispensed from the hierarchy. This hour belongs to the laiety. This apostolate, Catholic Answers, is Exhibit A.

 

[hasikelee]

lifesite.net/ldn/2007/may/07052308.html

This is a must read.

"Kissling writes, ‘Every so often some Roman Catholic hierarch gets a bee in his beanie and makes noises about excommunicating some pro-choice policy maker. Ultra-orthodox Catholics are ecstatic, and even mainstream newspapers turn into tabloids rushing to report the imminence of something that never happens’.”

“But it is true that after 25 years of public advocacy for abortion and as the abortion movement’s favourite weapon to bash and ridicule Catholic teaching, Kissling remains, officially, in good standing as a Catholic and claims to receive Communion regularly”

This is the biggest problem that the Church faces today.

This is probably already posted on here:

She exocommunicates herself. So there. lol